What do you think of the Catholic Church's methods in 16th and 17th-century Latin America?

Question

It seems that feminists believe that coercive social change is perfectly justified and apparently some believe that violence to ensure it is also necessary (note my other question linked below). To those who believe in coercive social change, could you weigh in on of the Roman Catholic Church's coercive conversions in the 16th and 17th centuries? Do you believe they were justified in coercing the natives into conversion? Why or why not?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiOVMK78kY6laa6jrfVKVRIYxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071207072656AAKb5CL

Tracey: Once again thank you for answering a question that doesn't involve bodily fluids. However, you're a couple hundred years and a couple thousand miles off. The Catholic Church actually did use "soft coercion" (as you put it) in Latin America. The natives were required to convert, but the torturing you're thinking of occurred during the Spanish Inquisition (back in Europe).

Cassius: I'm not criticizing the Catholic Church here, but presenting a conundrum for the feminists (who hate few things more than the Catholic Church).

Cassius: To further clarify, if they opposed those coerced conversions on the basis that they were coerced, then they would be hypocritical in endorsing coercive tactics for their own cause. If they oppose them because they disagree with the foundations of the Catholic Church, then that would contradict their moral relativism/multiculralism (which is not universal, but is widespread among feminists).

smoofus70: Read up on your history. The Spanish Conquistadors (at the bequest of their government and in the name of gold) did the slaughtering. The Catholic Church did not. They coerced conversion in the same way feminism seeks social coersion.

RoVale: The Catholic Church didn't enslave the natives. Also, feminists don't seek "rights for themselves", otherwise there would be no male feminists and feminists wouldn't want rights for non-feminist women (which isn't the case). It can also be said that the Catholics sought to spritually free the natives. If we cut through your errors, it seems to me that you're OK with the Catholic Church's methods there and, in fact, endorse similar tactics with feminism. Is that correct?

Answer 1

I wouldnt look so much at what has been done to bring change, but at the values ideology and order that has been instilled. The Maya might have had their good sides, however they also had barbaric rituals that were in the way of an world of equality and fairnes, which is ultimately founded on christian values and makes out of an egalitiarian equalitiarian egalists atheist an Christian as well. Islam on the other hand has taken Turkey sicily and further territory by force, where men were subject to repressive laws as well as women, though sicily was later liberated by crusaders attempts to win back further territory failed with the result that many men and especially women live under repressive laws.
To answer your question, whatever it takes, better an bad end then bad with no end in sight, I applaud the catholic church and our culture that it believes into applying violence as little as possible and has become flexible in its believes to the point that it tolerates each and any believe and religion as long as certain core values are upheld.

Answer 2

There's a big difference here. The Catholic church was trying to control an entire population by forcing the natives to convert. They did not respect these people and treated them as slaves. The feminists are not doing that. They are trying to gain rights for themselves. They want more out of their own lives than domestic servitude, forced marriage and motherhood, plus they would like more career and educational opportunities. So in other words, an entire institution was trying to oppress people while another is trying to free a large segment of the population. Big difference.

Answer 3

The Church is dragging itself again right into a darker age - mass scandals approximately pedophile monks who the Church maintains hiding, no longer accepting the sector has converted. It's perspectives on ladies and replica are archaic and downright detrimental.

Answer 4

Wow! Are you really attempting to compare the slaughter committed by the Catholic church on Latin America with Feminism??

Answer 5

Raj, I think when feminists refer to "coercive social change," they are talking about soft coercion. Nobody ever suggested we bring out the thumb screws and the Iron Maiden.

** Raj, what is your obsession with bodily effluvia?